From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 13 12:55:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888A7106566C for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Received: from theravensnest.org (theraven.freebsd.your.org [216.14.102.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464B48FC15 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk (c120.sec.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.18.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by theravensnest.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DCt2C6069146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:55:03 GMT (envelope-from theraven@FreeBSD.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Chisnall In-Reply-To: <9EB2DA4F-19D7-4BA5-8811-D9451CB1D907@theravensnest.org> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:55:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120529045612.GB4445@server.rulingia.com> <20120711223247.GA9964@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20120713114100.GB83006@server.rulingia.com> <201207130818.38535.jhb@freebsd.org> <9EB2DA4F-19D7-4BA5-8811-D9451CB1D907@theravensnest.org> To: John Baldwin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Diane Bruce , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Steve Kargl , David Schultz , Peter Jeremy , Warner Losh Subject: Re: Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:55:04 -0000 On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:18, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:41:00 am Peter Jeremy wrote: >> AFAIK, none of the relevant standards (POSIX, IEEE754) have any >> precision requirements for functions other than +-*/ and sqrt() - all >> of which we have correctly implemented. I therefore believe that, = for >> the remaining missing functions, the Project would be best served by >> committing the best code that is currently available under a suitable >> license and cleaning it up over time (as was done for the current >> libm). >=20 > I concur. =20 As do I. I'd also point out that the ONLY requirement for long double = according to the standard is that it has at least the same precision as = double. Therefore, any implementation of these functions that is no = worse that the double version is compliant. Once we have something = meeting a minimum standard, then I'm very happy to see it improved, but = having C99 functions missing now is just embarrassing while we're = working on adding C11 features. David P.S. Someone said earlier that our clang still lacks some C99 features. = Please point me at the relevant clang PRs and I'll be happy to work on = them. There are quite a few open issues for C11 support, but C99 is, as = far as I know, done. =20=